How does one know that one exists?

[Flufebunekilr]

How does one know that one exists?

How does one know that there is an existence of a soul?

Major complaint: Descartes “I think therefore I am” = illogical fallacy

Descartes
I think therefore I am
What does I = if I is unknown?

I is (unknown)
Unknown think therefore unknown am

Descartes defines I in his statement before answering what I is, by stating that I thinks.

 

[Qoeleth]

Yes, for Descartes reasoning to be put more precisely:

“There is thinking, therefore there is a thinking agent.”

But, in fact, the existence of thinking does not suppose an agent, in the sense of the identity of any diachronic subject. So, it comes down to:
“There is thinking, therefore there is thinking”.

But a different interpretation is that Descartes is not making an empirical observation, but rather defining the pronoun “I”. In other words, he is saying:
“The pronoun ‘I’ is used to refer to whatever/whoever is currently doing the thinking or speaking.”

So, we know that the pronoun ‘I’ exists, and according to its rules of usage, it is to be applied to whoever is currently speaking or thinking.

But the idea of an identity of the ‘I’ at one point in time with the ‘I’ of another point in time seems dubious and unnecessary. Many of us will look back at ourselves decades ago, and it is really a different person. Why not apply the same principle to the space of one day, or one hour?

The great argument in favour of diachronic identity would be that ‘I’ can never be momentary, since it applies to the course of the entire act of thinking or speaking (the ‘I’ at the end of the sentence must have the same referent as the ‘I’ at the beginning of the sentence, syntactically), which is temporally extended.

And then, the evidence of one’s own existence is always circular. If one does not exist, the evidence of one’s own observance of one’s existence cannot be admitted.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

If we could only know what is provable by demonstration, we could never prove by demonstration.

 

[meltzerboy]

How does one know that one exists?

How does one know that there is an existence of a soul?

Major complaint: Descartes “I think therefore I am” = illogical fallacy

Descartes
I think therefore I am
What does I = if I is unknown?

I is (unknown)
Unknown think therefore unknown am

Descartes defines I in his statement before answering what I is, by stating that I thinks.

Specifically, Descartes believes that since he doubts everything, he must be thinking, and because he is thinking, he as thinker (and doubter) must exist. But you’re correct in noting that Descartes has already taken for granted the fact there is an “I” or self who is doubting and thus thinking.

We have NO WAY OF PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT our own existence, let alone the existence of others or of G-d. We would have to begin by assuming what Descartes assumes: that we already exist for the purpose of proving our existence. We would also have to assume that human logic is meaningful. We can only live our lives based on assumptions, NOT on any full-proof certainty; but in order to achieve any sense of inner peace, we MUST do this by faith.

 

[littlenothing]

I have no answer for you, but a funny story, if anyone cares to hear it.

My sister, 18 months my senior, asked me to prove to her that I exist. She was in kindergarten at the time. I said, “Well I’m right here!”, “Can’t you see me?” and such. I may have even pinched her for good measure.

The she said, “But how do I know you’re not just a figment of my imagination?”

At this point, I was having serious doubts I would ever make it in kindergarten.

So, I ran to dad crying, “Daddy! Sissy just called me a pig mint in a magic nation!”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have no answer for you, but a funny story, if anyone cares to hear it.

My sister, 18 months my senior, asked me to prove to her that I exist. She was in kindergarten at the time. I said, “Well I’m right here!”, “Can’t you see me?” and such. I may have even pinched her for good measure.

The she said, “But how do I know you’re not just a figment of my imagination?”

At this point, I was having serious doubts I would ever make it in kindergarten.

So, I ran to dad crying, “Daddy! Sissy just called me a pig mint in a magic nation!”

Cute. Everyone around here takes themselves sooooo seriously ( including me ).

Linus2nd

 

[Razanir]

I have no answer for you, but a funny story, if anyone cares to hear it.

My sister, 18 months my senior, asked me to prove to her that I exist. She was in kindergarten at the time. I said, “Well I’m right here!”, “Can’t you see me?” and such. I may have even pinched her for good measure.

The she said, “But how do I know you’re not just a figment of my imagination?”

At this point, I was having serious doubts I would ever make it in kindergarten.

So, I ran to dad crying, “Daddy! Sissy just called me a pig mint in a magic nation!”

Similar story: Some friends and I were having a conversation last year and agreed everyone is a figment of my then-roommate’s imagination

 

[thequietsinger]

I have no answer for you, but a funny story, if anyone cares to hear it.

My sister, 18 months my senior, asked me to prove to her that I exist. She was in kindergarten at the time. I said, “Well I’m right here!”, “Can’t you see me?” and such. I may have even pinched her for good measure.

The she said, “But how do I know you’re not just a figment of my imagination?”

At this point, I was having serious doubts I would ever make it in kindergarten.

So, I ran to dad crying, “Daddy! Sissy just called me a pig mint in a magic nation!”

That is so funny! Though, I must ask, what did he say to that?

As for you, the OP, I’m afraid I, too, can’t answer your question, mostly because I’m not exactly sure what you want to know. Sorry about that. Much love to you.

 

[JerryZ]

How does one know that one exists?

How does one know that there is an existence of a soul?

Major complaint: Descartes “I think therefore I am” = illogical fallacy

Descartes
I think therefore I am
What does I = if I is unknown?

I is (unknown)
Unknown think therefore unknown am

Descartes defines I in his statement before answering what I is, by stating that I thinks.

I do not believe that it is “illogical”

In Descartes original “Cogito ergo Sum” he is equating thinking to being

Think = Being (am)

Ergo is an equal sign by the way

You put an I before the “thinking” and therefore violated a mathematical law.
You modified 1 term in the equation and not the other.

(I = think) = (I = am) balances the equation preserving Descartes logic.

If I = think and I = am then Think = am (Descartes postulate)

Or thinking is equivalent to being

Can we prove this extrinsically? Nope we cannot. But it is NOT illogical.

 

[sealoch]

Does it matter if you don’t exist? Would you act differently because i would not.

As for the soul there are plenty of experiments that show results either way. I hope that there is not the existence of a soul. Or if there is that it is reincarnated or rejoined with a great collective of some sort. However i find that to be highly unlikely and accept that this is it one shot and done existence. Why not make the most of it by spending nights hanging out on forums.

 

[1AugustSon7]

We have NO WAY OF PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT our own existence, let alone the existence of others or of G-d.

But we do have a way of proving that we have no way of proving beyond any doubt our own existence or the existence of the Almighty. So while we cannot prove beyond any doubt our own or God’s existence, we can be emphatically certain -indeed, even caps lock certain- that we are uncertain of our own existence. So while we can’t be sure we exist, we can be sure that we don’t know that we exist. So at the very least we can be very sure that - while we may not exist - doubt most certainly does exist. So we know that doubt exists. We are just not sure what exists to be doing the doubting or, beside doubt, what else might doubtlessly exist.

Of course, Catholics do in fact believe that human reason is at least capable of knowing God exists with certainty - though I am not sure if we are expected to believe that we can know if we exist with a similar certainty. I’ll leave that one to the CDF.

 

[po18guy]

Cogito ergo sum.

 

[meltzerboy]

But we do have a way of proving that we have no way of proving beyond any doubt our own existence or the existence of the Almighty. So while we cannot prove beyond any doubt our own or God’s existence, we can be emphatically certain -indeed, even caps lock certain- that we are uncertain of our own existence. So while we can’t be sure we exist, we can be sure that we don’t know that we exist.

Of course, Catholics do in fact believe that human reason is at least capable of knowing God exists with certainty - though I am not sure if we are expected to believe that we can know if we exist with a similar certainty. I’ll leave that one to the CDF.

Proof to the degree of certainty is not the same as proving a proof of an uncertainty, at least according to human reason, which you are applying. The former seems to be an impossibility, while the latter is meaningless in terms of logic. We do not reasonably demand proof of not proving someone’s existence, but we do demand proof of someone’s existence. And how exactly can you be sure of G-d’s existence apart from certainty of your own since for you to personally prove G-d’s existence you must rely on your own?

 

[kmcarl56]

That is one of my favorite sayings! “Cogito ergo sum.” If I were just an object, like a chair, which exists but does not think, then I would just be an object incapable of thought. A rock grows but does not think about it.

We are within the realm of the animal on this planet. A tiger thinks about his prey. A mother takes care of her young… Instinct?..or Thought? To have instinct, one must have thought. Even an amoeba “knows” what to do while alive.

That in itself explains your question.

 

[Bahman]

How does one know that one exists?

How does one know that there is an existence of a soul?

Major complaint: Descartes “I think therefore I am” = illogical fallacy

Descartes
I think therefore I am
What does I = if I is unknown?

I is (unknown)
Unknown think therefore unknown am

Descartes defines I in his statement before answering what I is, by stating that I thinks.

First argument (strong): We experience ourselves so we can assume we exist,
Second argument (weak): We experience ourselves so we do exist, I reality we have no proof whatsoever for our existences

 

[Phil_Marinus]

It can be proven beyond any doubt scientifically that you exist…
It has a scientific term… It’s called selficimpactess , it’s a rare word so I doubt it’s even on google… First get an impact thing like a mallet… Place left hand on a rock, raise mallet in right hand above right ear, then drop on left hand at steady speed.continue until convinced that your right hand exists, which inturn is connected to the rest of your body…which inturn could and should cause pain… If you succeed at feeling pain… Then yep…you do exist.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Proof to the degree of certainty is not the same as proving a proof of an uncertainty, at least according to human reason, which you are applying. The former seems to be an impossibility, while the latter is meaningless in terms of logic. We do not reasonably demand proof of not proving someone’s existence, but we do demand proof of someone’s existence. And how exactly can you be sure of G-d’s existence apart from certainty of your own since for you to personally prove G-d’s existence you must rely on your own?

If, according to you, I can be absolute certain of a doubt, then I must absolutely be to be absolutely certain of anything, even of a doubt. I in fact have no reason to doubt my own existence, and every moment confirms it to me, for “from nothing, comes nothing”; but a doubt is not nothing, nor can nothing doubt, for there is nothing in nothing to do any doubting; but if I can doubt, then I must necessarily be, and so be capable, of doubting. Therefore even if I do doubt something, I can never doubt my own existence, for the very act of doubting is itself a confirmaton that I am not nothing; and if I am not nothing, then I am something; and even if I am in doubt, I can at least be certain that I am doubting something, or be certain that I actually am in doubt; but of my own existence I cannot actually doubt, even when I doubt, for as said from nothing, comes nothing: and nothing cannot produce anything, or have anything, not even a doubt.

 

[tonyrey]

How does one know that one exists?

How does one know that there is an existence of a soul?

Major complaint: Descartes “I think therefore I am” = illogical fallacy

Descartes
I think therefore I am
What does I = if I is unknown?

I is (unknown)
Unknown think therefore unknown am

Descartes defines I in his statement before answering what I is, by stating that I thinks.

Welcome to the forum!

1. “Cogito ergo sum” is a conclusion rather than a definition.
2. There is no doubt that thoughts exist.
3. If thoughts didn’t exist it would be pointless making any rational statements.
4. The most economical and most adequate explanation of thoughts is that they are produced by a thinker.
5. The pronoun “I” is shorthand for a thinker.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Well, you don’t exist. At least not independently. You exist as a real but imagined quantum wave formation in the mind of your Creator. If you have previously felt confused about whether you exist or not it is simply a result of not knowing and understanding this.

 

[Bahman]

The most economical and most adequate explanation of thoughts is that they are

What do you mean with this statement? People wouldn’t ask such a question if the answer to that was adequate. The fact that we experience things (including thinking) doesn’t provide any prove that we do exist. I can simply say that “thought has been experienced” instead of “I experienced thought” or more stronger “I thought”. In fact experiencing thoughts unlike experiencing an object is an abstract phenomena and it is detached from things surrounding you, including your body and perhaps even your mind (at least we have no logical prove for it). The very important fact that we always strive on something else to prove our existences leads to doubt that these sort of proofs for our existence are valid.